Judge blocks Arizona "show me your papers" law

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I see that word “solely” was struck from the text of the final bill. My bad. I still maintain that they will use race as the sole factor, because there isn’t anything else they can use, and because harassment of Hispanics is the entire goal of the bill.

I provided a number of different examples of other things they could use, and yet you continue to insist that race is the only thing they can use. Why is that?

[Bricker]

@LonesomePolecat

@Bricker

What kind of circumstances might give rise to the cop’s reasonable suspicion?

If you’re brown and short, you’re driving without a license, insurance or proper registration, and you don’t have any identification on you, then a cop has a pretty good reason to suspect that you may be illegal.

No.

If you’re brown and short, you’re driving without a license, insurance or proper registration, and you don’t have any identification on you, then the cop has probable cause (a standard higher than reasonable suspicion) to believe you have violated numerous motor vehicle codes.

Period.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

@Bricker

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The law specifically forbids using only race, color and national origin, not using them at all.

No, that’s not true.

The law forbids their use, period.

It’s true that the OLD, outdated bil that never became law said “…A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin…”

But the actual bill, as amended by HB 2162, the one that actually became law, struck the word “solely.” So the law forbids the use, period.

And I KNOW that you wouldn’t be quoting the old SB1070 that never became law, not after the temper tantrum I threw about that above. Right?

Right?

Is this the old bill, then?

@descamisado

@mlees

Arizona may not use ethnicity for “reasonable doubt”:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm

@AB1070

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

Your quote actually says “solely” so it can be used, just not as the only reason.

I think that is the old version. I found this, which is apparently what actually became law (the changes and updates are color coded). In this version, section 5.D now says

D. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.

That last part gives me pause again, though. To what extent is using race permitted by the US or Arizona Constitutions? They might be using a little misdirection there by making it appear if they are striking any ability to use race at all, only to hide the exact same ability in the exception.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Is this the old bill, then?

@descamisado

@mlees

Arizona may not use ethnicity for “reasonable doubt”:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm

@AB1070

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

Your quote actually says “solely” so it can be used, just not as the only reason.

That is the old bill. The word “solely” was stricken.

[mlees]

@Really Not All That Bright

Is this the old bill, then?

I quoted the original version of SB1070. Bricker pointed out that there is an amendment bill (HB2162), which I was unaware of.

I apologise for citing the incorrect version of the law, and I apologise for any confusion resulting from that.

(This is why they pay them lawyers the Big Bucks.)

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That last part gives me pause again, though. To what extent is it permitted bu the US or Arizona Constitutions. They might be using a little misdirection there by making it appear if they are striking any ability to use race at all, only to hide the exact same ability in the exception.

It shouldn’t. Any use of race would have to survive strict scrutiny analysis under both the Arizona and US Constitutions. None could.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

In that case, I don’t mind the bill, although I am a little curious as to what extent the Arizona Constitution permits law enforcement officers to consider race, color or national origin.

ETA: What Dio said.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@LonesomePolecat

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I see that word “solely” was struck from the text of the final bill. My bad. I still maintain that they will use race as the sole factor, because there isn’t anything else they can use, and because harassment of Hispanics is the entire goal of the bill.

Even if this were true, you completely fail to consider the fact that the federal government’s refusal to secure our borders is monstrously unfair to American citizens, particularly poor and working class citizens who would have gotten jobs that went to illegal aliens instead.

Cite that the federal goverment is “refusing to secure our borders?” Are you aware that this is actually bullshit?

[LonesomePolecat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What reason would that be?

How would it not be a reason? Basically, you just don’t want to do anything about illegal immigration.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There’s a lot of shirtless white trash driving around without vehicle documentation.

Oh, yeah, I forgot how much you hate poor whites.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@LonesomePolecat

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Don’t you have some crosses to burn or something?

Isn’t it about time for you to give up your dumbass hippie fantasies about what a beautiful multicultural society we’re becoming and live in the real world?

And what is the real world? Go ahead, enlighten us. Tell us the truth about race.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

@LonesomePolecat

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I see that word “solely” was struck from the text of the final bill. My bad. I still maintain that they will use race as the sole factor, because there isn’t anything else they can use, and because harassment of Hispanics is the entire goal of the bill.

Even if this were true, you completely fail to consider the fact that the federal government’s refusal to secure our borders is monstrously unfair to American citizens, particularly poor and working class citizens who would have gotten jobs that went to illegal aliens instead.

United Farm Workers has invited people making this claim to put their money where their mouths are. So far, there don’t seem to be many takers.

Only a small percentage of illegal aliens are farmworkers. At meatpacking plants and other places, citizens have lined up by the hundreds to get the jobs that had been freed up following an ICE raid.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

And what is the real world? .

Pretty much the opposite of anything you believe.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@LonesomePolecat

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I see that word “solely” was struck from the text of the final bill. My bad. I still maintain that they will use race as the sole factor, because there isn’t anything else they can use, and because harassment of Hispanics is the entire goal of the bill.

Even if this were true, you completely fail to consider the fact that the federal government’s refusal to secure our borders is monstrously unfair to American citizens, particularly poor and working class citizens who would have gotten jobs that went to illegal aliens instead.

Cite that the federal goverment is “refusing to secure our borders?” Are you aware that this is actually bullshit?

The fact that they haven’t controlled the border is all the cite I need. It’s your reply here that’s bullshit, dude.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Bricker

@LonesomePolecat

@Bricker

What kind of circumstances might give rise to the cop’s reasonable suspicion?

If you’re brown and short, you’re driving without a license, insurance or proper registration, and you don’t have any identification on you, then a cop has a pretty good reason to suspect that you may be illegal.

No.

If you’re brown and short, you’re driving without a license, insurance or proper registration, and you don’t have any identification on you, then the cop has probable cause (a standard higher than reasonable suspicion) to believe you have violated numerous motor vehicle codes.

Period.

Bah. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Cite they haven’t controlled the border? You’re just parakeeting paranoid right wing memes without backing anything up. Did you know that Obama has stepped up enforcement well above what Bush was doing? That illegal immigration is down under Obama while deportations are up? Does that ever get mentioned at the teabagger rallies?

[Bricker]

sigh

Hey, thanks for helping, Lonesome Polecat. There’s nothing like an argument that can survive just fine with facts being helped along by outlandish and unsupported claims. Really appreciate the assist, pal.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You’re just parakeeting paranoid right wing memes without backing anything up.

LOL! This, coming from a man who never uttered anything that wasn’t a liberal cliche!

[LonesomePolecat]

@Bricker

sigh

Hey, thanks for helping, Lonesome Polecat. There’s nothing like an argument that can survive just fine with facts being helped along by outlandish and unsupported claims. Really appreciate the assist, pal.

There were no outlandish, unsupported claims in anything that I said. Anyone who’s been paying any attention at all for the last several decades knows that we’ve lost control of our southern border, and neither of the major parties is serious about securing it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Obama is.

[gonzomax]

@Bricker

@gonzomax

What determines if you need to produce papers? A cops opinion. If he suspects you are an illegal, if you look swarthy ,he can ask for papers.

Except in this post, I provided examples that have nothing to do with looking swarthy. Did you read it? Was it unclear in some way?

I did not say the color was the primary cause for pulling him over. I simply state that once he has pulled you over for speding ,he has to make a judgement about whether you are a likely illegal. The first cause may not be color or accent, or even last name. But the second is. I doubt Swedes will get asked to turn over their papers. This law is aimed at Mexican illegals. To suggest otherwise would be absurd. I there anybody on this board that thinks it is not targeting south of the border people?
Then there is pressure on the cops to ask a lot of people for their papers. the citizens can sue police they think are not doing it well enough. Nothing like making the cops react to the lowest denominator of people, the bigots. there will probably be groups that follow police and make their own determinations if the cops are vigorous enough . That is a lovely can of worms baked into the bill.